Saturday, August 16, 2014

War on the phone masts

A mobile phone company has been banned from erecting a mast because of health fears.

The decision is the first of its kind by Government planning inspectors.

They rejected an application by Orange to erect a 30ft mast in a residential area because of the 'serious harm' it could cause to those living nearby.

The landmark move is expected to have major implications for hundreds of similar cases nationwide.

Community groups and safety campaigners have repeatedly expressed fears about the masts - which send and receive mobile phone signals -because of the possible radiation dangers.

There are fears of a link between microwave radiation from masts and conditions ranging from cancer to blood clots in the brain.

Orange wanted to erect the mast in Harrow, North-West London. The council refused the application last May after residents expressed their concerns.

The company appealed to John Prescott's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions whose inspectors also turned the application down.

They stated: 'The need to site the installation in the location proposed does not outweigh the serious harm it would cause to neighbouring residents in terms of visual amenity and about the possible health effect.'

They claimed the company had not provided enough detail about possible radiation emissions. 'In short, there is little in the written representations expressly relating to the appeal proposal that provides any basis for allaying the fears that neighbouring residents have about it,' their report said.

Orange said it was 'considering the way forward'. Although applications for mobile phone masts have previously been rejected on health grounds by councils, including Barnet, Kent and Worcester, this is the first time the matter has gone as far as the Planning Inspectorate and been rejected.

Inspectors are preparing to issue local authorities with guidelines advising them that all telecommunications companies should provide concise details about the risks of potential radiation emissions when applying to put up masts.

Harrow councillor Navin Shah said: 'Up until now the advice to planning authorities has been that health considerations should not be taken into account, as long as the radio waves from a mast fall within recommended guidelines.

'The appeal decision at last confirms the genuine fears of local people are being recognised.'

Last year the Stewart Report, a study by 12 experts commissioned by the Department of Health, stated that children might be more vulnerable to the low-level radiation from the masts because they have thinner skulls and a developing nervous system.

The chairman, Professor Sir William Stewart, a former Government chief scientist, stressed that, on balance, there was no scientific evidence of a threat from either mobile handsets or mobile phone masts.

However, he added, that some studies indicated they caused subtle biological effects, particularly on the electrical circuitry of the brain.

Earlier this week a government advisory panel admitted there were potential health risks for children living near electricity power lines.

PR NewswireWASHINGTON Aug. 8 2014WASHINGTON Aug. 8 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- A Washington D.C. superior court ruled that five scientific expert witnesses can testify for consumers suffering from brain tumors allegedly caused or promoted by cell phone use Ashcraft & Gerel LLPMorganroth and Morganroth PLLCLundy Lundy Soileau & South L.L.P. and co-counsel said today.Judge Frederick H. Weisberg who is presiding over 13 consolidated lawsuits against the telecom industry ruled that experts met the Dyas/Frye legal standards and can offer testimony related to injury causation and health effects. The court held evidentiary hearings in December 2013 and January 2014 and reviewed hundreds of exhibits.Judge Weisberg noted that while the court did not decide the issue of whether cell phones cause brain tumors new scientific studies and information have emerged recently. His order referred to a May 2014 French case-control epidemiological study that found support for "a possible association between heavy mobile phone use" and brain tumors.Each of the plaintiffs in the litigation suffers from a brain tumor or is suing for a family of someone who died of brain cancer.The plaintiffs are represented by Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC of Birmingham Mich.; Ashcraft & Gerel LLP of Washington D.C. and Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP of Lake Charles La.; The Knoll Law Firm LLC of Marksville La.; Pribanic & Pribanic LLC of Pittsburgh; Frasier Frasier & Hickman LLP of Tulsa Okla.; and Bernstein Liebhard LLP of New York.Hunter Lundy of Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP said "The telecom industry argued for years that cell phone consumer litigants could not produce scientists who could relate exposure to cell phone radiation to tumors. The ruling today refutes that contention and our experts' opinions having met the Dyas/Frye test are admissible."Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC said "We now have opinions and testimony from prominent scientific experts that will be admissible and support our clients' claims that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors in humans. With this landmark ruling the cases are moving forward to fact discovery."Michelle Parfitt and James F. Green of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP said "The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearings months ago only included publicly available materials and did not include any testing data or information in possession of the defendants. We will seek that information as soon as possible."The first of the consolidated cases is "Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola Inc. et al." Case No. 2001 CA 008479 B in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants in the cases are Motorola Inc. Qualcomm Inc. Nokia Inc. Audiovox Communications Corp. and Samsung Telecomm American LLC.Contact: Erin Powers Powers MediaWorks LLC for Ashcraft Gerel LLP info@powersmediaworks.com.SOURCEAshcraft & Gerel LLPPR Newswirehttp://www.prnewswire.com/Last updated on: 09/08/2014

EHS Documentary

My name is Gemma Barendse and I work as a research assistant for filmmaker Marie Lidén in Glasgow.

We're working on a documentary and a webplatform about electrosensitivity. We would like to get in contact with people who are electrosensitive and would like to share their experiences. We're also interested in hearing from journalists, activists and researchers.

Calming Behavior in Children with Autism and ADHD

The paper features Toril Jelter, MD, a Bay Area pediatrician who has offered this two-week protocol to families and seen significant changes in children's behavior; UK biologist Andrew Goldsworthy; software designer Peter Sullivan, whose two sons displayed symptoms of autism as toddlers, and now, as teenagers, do not display autistic behaviors; and BioInitiative Co-editor Cindy Sage, who offers advice to parents for reducing EMR exposure.

Also, as a project of the EMR Policy Institute, I recently posted a list of cell tower fires and collapses.

Microwave News on the CDC's call for caution on cell phones

From Louis Slesin, Editor of Microwave News:

Excerpt

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention —CDC— has become the first U.S. health agency to call for precaution in the use of cell phones. “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use,” the CDC states on its Web site’s FAQ About Cell Phones and Your Health. It follows up with a call for more research to answer the unresolved cancer question. The recommendation was posted on the CDC’s Web site on or before, June 9. It passed mostly unnoticed until a few days ago when Joel Moskowitz, who writes a blog on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, sent out a press release announcing the news. “I am pleased to see that the CDC, the lead public health action agency in the United States, is reassuming its leadership role by warning the public about this health risk,” he said in an interview with Microwave News. Moskowitz is the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Are Cellphones Safe to Use During Pregnancy?

Pregnant women have a TON to talk about on the phone, from spreading the big "guess what?" news to family and friends to running baby names by her hubs. Just one problem: Rumors have circulated that cellphonesaren't safe forpregnant women. Apparently radiation may posehealth risks to the developing fetus. According to a study at Yale, pregnent mice exposed to cellphone radiation had offspring plagued with behavior problems, like hyperactivity and memory loss. Yikes!

Granted, the Yale researchers are quick to point out that more research needs to be done before they reach any firm conclusions. And while the jury's still out, here's what other experts have to say on the topic based on the evidence so far. "Electromagnetic radiation used in cellphones may have an affect on 'neurite outgrowth' -- the connections between neurons -- in a developing nervous system," says Lee Dennis, ND, a naturopathic doctor atDrLeeDennis.com. This, in turn, could be a mechanism for causing behavioral issues.

That's not to say that pregnant women have to swear off cellphones, says Dr. Devra Davis, an epidemiologist and founder of the Environmental Health Trust who’s studied this phenomenon in her book Disconnect: The Truth About Cellphone Radiation, What Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family. "I'm not saying pregnant women can't use cellphones at all, but they should be very much aware that even just a few inches away from their body can reduce their exposure."

Here's the deal with distance: A cellphone’s electromagnetic field is one-fourth the strength at a distance of two inches from the body, and fifty times lower at three feet (that's why many cellphones come with a warning that says: Do not hold closer than one inch from your body. Go figure).

As a result, if you're pregnant and concerned, be sure to keep your cellphone in a purse or bag rather than in a pocket on your body, and use a headset instead of placing the phone near your ear. When you sleep, keep your cellphone at a distance of at least a few feet from your bed rather than tucked under your pillow or nearby on your nightstand.

And since the radiation continues as long as your cellphone is on, texting doesn't keep you in the clear. So if you do text, place the phone on a table -- not on your belly! -- or hold it away from your body. And if you must play Angry Birds, consider "airplane mode," which does not emit radiation.

Certain products might also help. Cellphone cases from PongCase.com claim to limit radiation exposure; the case for an iPhone 5s, for instance, can reduce your exposure to up to five times below the Federal Communication Commission's Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limit, a metric for measuring the absorption of radio-frequency into the body.

Bottom line: If you fall into the "better safe than sorry!" camp, taking a few simple precautions could bring peace of mind.

British teen Jake Parker is "scarred for life" after his iPhone 5 burned a 2-inch hole in his forearm while asleep in bed. cooltv482/YouTube

Falling asleep cuddling with a mobile device has become a common habit for many who cringe at the thought of losing or being separated from their smartphones. A teen in the UK claims his iPhone 5 left him with a gigantic blister-turned-hole on his forearm after he fell asleep on it after returning from his factory job. Eighteen-year-old Jake Parker is now “scarred for life” after suffering what could be a “radiation burn” that left him with a 2-inch hole.

Parker claims he knew the iPhone 5 caused the injury because it was still “really hot,” he told The Sun. "I was just texting, looking at Facebook — normal stuff.” "Now, every time I move my arm it's like ripping open. At one point I could see the muscle moving."

The teen, who is also a rugby player, was prescribed antibiotics after the wound became infected, but he shortly went to the hospital after the sore turned black, leaving him in severe pain. Parker’s blister then burst and left the wounded site with a gaping hole all the way down to his muscle. According to the Daily Mail, doctors who treated the teen told him they had “never seen anything” like it, and suggested Parker revisit for a check-up because it “could be a radiation burn.”

Given previous iPhone burn stories, Apple users took to the Apple Support Communities forum to speculate whether the device can actually cause skin burns. User ColonelCool asked: “I have [a] strange sensation when I hold my iPhone 3G too long and I even have strange orange traces on the hand were my skin touch the iPhone as if the phone burned my skin ... is it normal?”

While answers remain weary, in 2009, an iPhone 3G user, Alan Ziegler, told The Telegraph: "I was on a call for 20 minutes and it was so uncomfortably hot I had to put it on speaker.” To determine whether the iPhone, specifically the 3G can actually get really hot, CNET.com conducted some tests with a temperature-sensing multimeter to see if they could cause it to melt, measure it, and see if it could burn a user’s face. The highest the phone would rise in the tests was 91.9 degrees, which was achieved after a 50-minute 3G phone call while simultaneously streaming 50 minutes of high-quality video over Wi-Fi from theBBC iPlayer. They reported no overheating, no melted casing, and no scorched faces.

Despite the lack of evidence from CNET.com’s trial, Parker’s case is not unique to the rest of the teens and adults who sleep with their phones on their bed. Last month, a 13-year-old girl in Texas, woke up to her bed in flames after she left herSamsung Galaxy S4 under her pillow while asleep. Currently, Samsung advises users in their guide that covering devices with bedding or other materials could potentially cause a fire.

While these cases are rare but do occur, excessive smartphone use could have negative effects on users’ health. As the iPhone continues to be the most popular smartphone in the U.S., it’s important to keep in mind how mobile devices are affecting your health. Be iPhone smart, and take into account these health risks when using your phone:

1) Unhealthy levels of radiation

While it’s still not clear whether using cell phones can actually lead to cancer, theWorld Health Organization views radiation emitted by smartphones as a possible carcinogen to humans.

2) Poor Sleep Quality

A 2013 HuffPost/YouGov survey found 63 percent of smartphone users age 18 to 29 drift off to sleep with a cell phone, smartphone, or tablet in their bed. Leaving electronic devices nearby the bed can hinder sleep for teens and adults alike leading to sleep deprivation, and even increasing their vulnerability to the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

3) Addiction

A whopping 66 percent of people are actually afraid to lose or be separated from their smartphones, according to a SecurEnvoy survey, the global leader of Tokenless® two-factor authentication.

The researchers think the bursts disrupt tight junction proteins responsible for maintaining the integrity of the BBB, but without causing damage to the surrounding tissue.

This technique will be described in the upcoming issue of the journalTECHNOLOGY.

Treating brain diseases

For the treatment of brain cancer, “VEIN pulses could be applied at the same time as biopsy or through the same track as the biopsy probe in order to mitigate damage to the healthy tissue by limiting the number of needle insertions,” saysRafael V. Davalos, Ph.D, director of the Bioelectromechanical Systems Laboratory at Virginia Tech.

The BBB is a network of tight junctions that normally acts to protect the brain from foreign substances by preventing them from leaking from blood vessels into neural structures. But that also limits the effectiveness of drugs to treat brain disease. Temporarily opening the BBB is a way to ensure that drugs can still be effective.

Pathologic and MRI evidence of blood-brain-barrier (BBB) disruption induced by the VEIN (Vascular Enabled Integrated Nanosecond) pulse generation system. Two minimally invasive needle electrodes with 1 mm active length were spaced 4.0 mm apart and inserted into the right cerebral hemisphere 1.5 mm beneath the surface of the dura. A burst of 200, 500 ns duration square pulses of alternating polarity with a voltage-to-distance ratio of 250 V/cm were applied through the electrodes. In the case shown above, bursts were repeated once per second for 10 min. The extent of BBB disruption is shown by the dotted line surrounding Evans blue-albumin complex uptake on the gross brain slice preparation (left) and the corresponding fluorescent image (middle). Additionally, areas of BBB disruption appear as hyperintense (white) on the T1-weighted MRI exam, due to the uptake of a gadolinium-Evans blue tracer. Scale bar represents 5 mm. (Credit: John H. Rossmeisl Jr., Neurology and Neurosurgery, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine and Virginia Tech-Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences).

The research also shows that VEIN pulses can be applied without causing muscle contractions, which may dislodge the electrodes and require the use of a neuroblocker and general anesthesia. According to Christopher B. Arena, Ph.D., co-lead author on the paper, “the fact that the pulses alternate in polarity helps to avoid unwanted, electrically induced movement. Therefore, it could be possible to perform this procedure without using a neuroblocker and with patients under conscious sedation. This is similar to how deep brain stimulation is implemented clinically to treat Parkinson’s disease.”

The team now plans to translate the technology into clinical applications through a university spin-out company, VoltMed, Inc.

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Golfers Against Cancer, and the Center for Biomolecular Imaging in the Wake Forest School of Medicine.

Abstract of Technology paper

The blood-brain-barrier (BBB), a network of tight junctions that impedes large molecule transport, limits the usefulness of systemic chemotherapeutic delivery for the treatment of malignant gliomas and other neurological diseases. Here, we present a tool for BBB disruption that uses bursts of sub-microsecond bipolar pulses to enhance the transfer of large molecules to the brain. Blunt needle electrodes were advanced into the motor cortex of anesthetized adult rats, and a series of 90–900 bursts were delivered with voltage-to-distance ratios of 250 or 2000 V/cm, a total programmed energized time of 100 μs, and a repetition rate of 1 Hz. BBB disruption was assessed via a gadolinium-Evans blue albumin tracer, and all experimental conditions were found to cause BBB disruption immediately following treatment without inducing local or distal muscle contractions. The lowest energy condition, 300 bursts consisting of 850 ns bipolar pulses, resulted in significant BBB disruption (0.51 cm3), without displaying necrotic or apoptotic damage to neurological tissue.

Carcinogenicity of Cell Phone Radiation: 2B or not 2B…

From the blog of Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and A Hard Place:

Excerpt:

August 14, 2014

In May/June 2011, 30 experts (I was one of them) invited by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), gathered in Lyon to discuss the scientific studies on radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cancer.

After intense deliberations, to the great surprise of the world-at-large, experts decided to classify RF-EMF emitted by e.g. cell phones, cell towers and wi-fi networks, as a possible human carcinogen – in IARC scale “2B carcinogen”.

IARC has somewhat complicated but detailed set of rules that guide classification of carcinogenicity. The rules are in place to prevent “out of the blue sky” classifications. Protocols need to be followed and requirements fulfilled before carcinogen is classified.

Once the evidence from human studies is determined to be limited, and the same limited evidence is assigned to the evidence from experimental animal studies, classification of RF was automatically set as 2B possible carcinogen (for details see Preamble of IARC Monograph 102).

There are three possible scenarios that could change classification from 2B possible carcinogen to a higher group of carcinogenicity.

Mobilize, an upcoming documentary from filmmaker Kevin Kunze, is the first feature-length documentary to examine the possibly harmful effects of cell phone radiation. The production value is shoddy at best — Kunze started the film as a student, and paid the production costs himself — but the film is dense with professors and researchers who testify that the effects of cellphone radiation on the human brain are very real.

The film zeroes in on a specific phenomenon — the effects of the radiation in cellphones when they are held against the side of your head. Cell phones emit a small amount of electromagnetic radiation when they transmit a signal, and the film asks whether or not that radiation has any effect on the human brain, the most sensitive area cell phones come in contact with.

As the film shows, most cellphone manufacturers include ass-covering disclaimers in their phone manuals, suggesting you keep your phone about an inch away from your face — an absurd request for someone who needed to, say, make a phone call. The radiation is real, but unlike health risks from tobacco, certain medicines, or cars, the warning has been relegated to fine print in small books that almost no one reads.

The FCC regulates both cell phone radiation and the media, and is heavily influenced by the cell phone industry’s powerful lobbying group. (Mobilize)

The biggest trouble with getting accurate research, Kunze said, is a tale as old as time in politics: lobbying money. For every independent research report that says there’s a tie between cellphone radiation and brain tumors, there’s an industry-sponsored report to refute it.

The film makes multiple allusions to the lobbying playbook of the tobacco industry when it first started to become clear that cigarettes are unhealthy, but Kunze doesn’t see tobacco as the best analogy.

“I think the better comparison is cars, which are another part of everyday life,” he said. “It was years before we put in airbags and seat belts, because we were blaming drivers for getting T-boned instead of focusing on what the industry could do.”

But plenty of people died in car accidents before that happened. When it comes to cellphones, it appears that we’re doing all right so far. After all, we haven’t seen incredible spikes in the number of brain tumors to correlate with the sudden ever-presence of cellphones.

The issue, Kunze says, is the threat to young kids. No generation before this one will have had cellphones since infancy, and developing brains are much more susceptible to electromagnetic radiation.

“Why not educate kids on this issue?” Kunze asks. “They’re the ones who are most vulnerable, and they’re the ones we’re experimenting on.”

Children born in the past few years will be the first generation with lifelong exposure to cellphone radiation. (Mobilize)

Kunze has been embedded in researching the issue for years, but when you speak to him, his claims often sound conspiratorial. He believes that suspicion around cellphone radiation has factored into the reasoning behind Facebook’s reluctance to get into the phone business, or why President Obama’s daughters don’t have phones (in fact, Malia has had one for years).

There are parts of the film where this over-reaching leads toward tinfoil-hat territory. One clip shows Virgin founder Richard Branson saying that he uses a headset because he’d rather keep dangerous cellphones away from his body and face. Mobilize points out that he later went on to establish Virgin Mobile and now does cellphone commercials, which raises the question: What does Richard Branson know that we don’t?

Probably nothing. The more likely explanation is that the early clip, filmed off-the-cuff in the back of a limo half a decade ago, caught him in a moment of speculation. It’s not clear that it’s ever something Branson cared very deeply about, or that he’s got some secret knowledge we’re not in on.

But to Kunze’s point, the problem is that nobody has anything approaching a definitive conclusion. As long as lobbying money is more powerful than our willingness to seriously look at the devices up in our pockets, we will continue to not know and make cynical jokes that our cellphones are killing us, instead of very seriously asking if they are.

Experts named in Pettipas lawsuit; additional donations needed

To Everyone,

We have raised about $6,000 so far toward the expert witness expensesfor the Pettipas lawsuit. Thank you to those who have contributed.

The lawsuit against Bell Alliant has now entered its next phase. Ednaand Marshall Pettipas of Afton Station, Nova Scotia, were injured in2007 by a cell tower that was built behind their house, and Edna hasdeveloped breast cancer and had a bilateral mastectomy.

On July 18, 2014, the Pettipas named the following doctors, scientists,and engineering consultants as their expert witnesses:

The money raised so far has been spent in securing and retaining theexperts, and in flying two of them to Nova Scotia to take radiationmeasurements at the Pettipas' house. It will cost approximately $17,000more to bring all the experts in for the trial next April and pay theirexpenses.

***If you send a check, be sure to write "Pettipas Project" in the memoportion of the check. If you pay on our website, be sure to choose"Pettipas Project" as the purpose of your donation. U.S. donations aretax deductible.

CDC now asserts that "Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use." As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to "reduce radio frequency radiation near your body."

Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC's lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC's new position in light of the Commission's obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.

CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. However, unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...